Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Friday, March 19th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
If you’re a photographer and use a Mac, chances are you’re using Lightroom or Aperture. Probably Lightroom, since Aperture is less popular among pros — and the latest version seems to be an acknowledgment of that. The features added in version 3 are clearly intended to draw casual shooters using iPhoto to the paid image editing honey pot. Since so many of these amazing new features are direct side-loads from iPhoto, it smooths the process and makes the program as a whole more approachable, though whether existing Aperture users will find them helpful is questionable. Brushes, on the other hand, are a welcome addition to any photographer’s toolset, and depending on how dedicated you are, may be worth the price of admission. Invasion of the iPhoto features As long as I’ve been using Aperture, I’ve considered it a processing application. Its photo management was troublesome here and there, and iPhoto had the best ways of showing off your shots, but I dealt with it since maintaining two separate libraries of the same photos would be disk space suicide. I’ve only used Lightroom a little bit (and a version or two back) but all my friends say that it just has a better workflow for serious photo work — importing a couple hundred shots, scrubbing through them, doing the necessary adjustments, and outputting to the necessary format. Not that I have trouble doing that in Aperture, but apparently it’s faster and better in Lightroom. Confronted with such a fearsome opponent, Apple decided that it would be better to flank than to risk a frontal assault. Hence the expansion of Aperture’s incorporation of iPhoto features Faces and Places. I question their relevance in a photo processing application, but given Apple’s tendency towards coalescing functionality, I’m guessing that iPhoto will eventually be Aperture: Gimped Edition, and the only real choice for organizing and messing with large numbers of photos will be Aperture. There are some kinks to be worked out. Faces plainly doesn’t work. After it spent literally five hours going through my photos (about 1000 per hour), this is what it has come up with: No, it didn’t have a lot to go on (I hadn’t “trained” it much yet) but really now. After giving it a few more pointers on what I looked like, it still mistook a three-year-old tow-headed girl, my friend Monica (who is Indian, and in a wedding dress), some E3 booth babes, and Casio president Kazuo Kashio for pale, bearded, Devin Coldewey . The cork board background is jarring and the interface for going through your shots is terrible. I realize this is a technology still being perfected, and that is why I am wondering: what is it doing in my RAW editing program? Places is useful if you have a geotagging camera (still rare) or want to spend a few hours dragging and dropping stuff onto the map. It can be fun, actually, if you take a lot of pictures of your friends, and want to drag and drop this or that night onto the location you went to; it’s like creating a different kind of album (“Linda’s Tavern”), and indeed you can make a browsable smart album from locations. If you’re like me, you won’t feel complete until the photos are more or less where they were within the city, and not all grouped in a single pin, smack in the middle of the city. This could have some promise, but with a backlog of several thousand shots, getting a library up to date in Places is a task I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. It’s a mistake to judge Faces and Places by simply saying “well we were fine before them,” because it may just be that we found ways of working in the old system of organization (Project> Folder> Album) that approximated what these new features do. But I don’t think it’s wrong to say they just don’t really do much, and feel out of place to boot. You have to work at them, or shoot for them, in order for them to really be worthwhile. Still I have to give credit where credit’s due: if you just consider Faces and Places new columns to organize by (like rating or date) then they’re worth their salt. As flagship features, though, they’re duds. Lastly, the slide show thing. It’s like finding a trout in the milk. Not that it doesn’t work — it works as well as iPhoto’s thing, and I suppose it’s better to have than not. It’s just a little weird to have a sort of… aftermarket feature popped in there next to the serious editing tools. Its little presets are, like in most Apple programs, 25% solid, 75% fluff. Who in the name of all that is holy is going to pick “Shatter” as their slide show transition? It’s ghastly. The new features are very well explained in little videos accessible through the “Welcome” screen, which will be handy for new users — if they can find the screen after they close it (it’s in Help> Welcome to Aperture). The good stuff So if the iPhoto features are icing, the actual cake is the RAW editing, adjustment tools, and user interface. Let’s start with what I would say is the best new feature: Brushes. You can see a pretty thorough overview of the feature at Apple’s site, but the gist is that it allows you to apply certain effects in limited areas using a brush of adjustable size and intensity. That’s great! I can’t count the number of times I’ve vacillated between two versions of a photo where an adjustment necessary for one part ended up blowing out another, or I just wanted to bring out the color in the eyes but not in the background. A lot of fiddling could usually approximate the effect I wanted, but it would be so much easier to just use a brush. I’ll be using the hell out of this feature, and it’s perhaps the only real step Apple took against Adobe in this update. (combination Brushes and Help Video screenshot) The brushes are non-destructive, like any of the dials and curves you can play with in the adjustments panel, so you can feel free to experiment, layer, and try out different effects. One thing I often have to do when shooting review shots is emphasize the color of LEDs, but if the subject is well-lit, the LEDs are going to be barely visible. No problem; make a little brush, add in a little contrast right there, bump the saturation just in the one area, and boom, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Brushes are useful for lots of little things like that. The new full-screen browser is handy but not really a revolution. They’ve added the ability to get around your library a little more, which is nice, but it’s not as streamlined as the regular browser, which is always accessible by a single keystroke. The fullscreen presentation has definitely been improved, however, and when showing off photos to friends or clients, it’s a better option than either the plain editing window or a slide show. The preset adjustments, I think we can agree, are being blown way out of proportion. These are the same kind of “professional adjustments” that you have been able to apply on cheap point-and-shoots since the beginning of time. There are a few quick adjust things like high-contrast black-and-white or exposure +1 that are nice to have previews for (the live preview window is handy), but let’s be honest, these are just filters. I’d like to be able to say that they’re carefully adjusted so you won’t see weird color effects, blackouts, or blowouts, but the fact is every one I tried looked cheap and overdone. The others, like white balance and so on, seem pretty redundant considering the actual controls for adjusting those aspects are mere pixels away in the same window. Click to see it larger. You can’t really tell here, since this photo isn’t very high contrast, but in several of the other shots I tried this on, the vintage look was really purple, cross-processing was really green, and toy camera pushed the contrast way too far. Subtle adjustments these are not. The good news is that people new to the program might try a couple, see that they were created by dragging curves and color bars around, and then make their own. I’ve had my own “base” adjustment for years now, which was just as easily accessible and just as customizable. Putting together a “look” for a shoot using this feature might be easier now than before, but it’s still just a toy at this point. The ability to have multiple libraries is nice; splitting work and personal stuff would be my move, so that if a meteor crashed into TC HQ (or, more likely, I’m fired for insubordination), I could free up a couple gigs in one clean sweep. It’s also convenient for backing up and sharing; “here’s my whole ‘wedding’ library, feel free to do what you like with it” rather than “here’s a folder full of RAW files.” A quick note Just a PSA: installation of Aperture 3 took ages. Plan on losing at least a working day to 100% processor usage as it converts your library, searches for Faces, and reprocesses your RAW files with the new profile. I’m not holding this against Apple (it’s a LOT of data to sift through) but it’s just something to be aware of. Conclusion Aperture is still a great program, in my opinion, and the budding photographer would be a lot better off with this than with iPhoto if they’re planning on doing anything more than collecting snapshots. I’ve gotten used to Aperture’s workflow and they haven’t changed it much in 3, in fact they’ve provided a couple serious improvements with Brushes and potentially Places and Faces — you know, if you’re into that kind of thing. The trouble I see is that Aperture, once a rather single-minded program, is being diluted with features that have nothing to do with its core functionality. Why not have a new program, called “Collection” or something, that hooks into all your libraries, allows for creating robust slide shows, exporting directly to Facebook, and all that sort of thing? Putting all this junk into Aperture is doing to it what Apple has done to iTunes: once a sleek and straightforward program, it has now grown bloated beyond comprehension; it’s a bit like seeing a once-great fighter gone to seed. I have more of an attachment to Aperture than to iTunes, but if Aperture 4 continues along the vector indicated by Aperture 3, you can consider me a Lightroom conversion. Give Aperture 3 a 30-day trial for free here. $199 to buy, $99 to upgrade.
Posted by 010081
Tech
Friday, March 19th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Kudos to Comcast for embracing the year 2009. The nation’s largest—and quite possibly worst —ISP has finally committed itself to deploying 100 mbps broadband beginning this year. That will make the FCC happy, what with the loft goals it set with its National Broadband Plan . It’s also good news for people who know their way around things like Usenet—taps nose like a spy. Will it be affordable, though? The big rollout will happen within the next 12 to 18 months. Most, if not all, of Comcast’s customers will be able to sign up for the super-fast service. You can thank DOCSIS 3.0 for that. Price may be an issue. Right now, Comcast offers 100 mbps down/15 mbps up service to business customers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for $369 per month. There’s no way you’re going to convince residential customers in this economy to shell out nearly $400 a month for Internet access, no matter how fast—that’s the price of two car payments. Now you’d have to figure that not even Comcast would be that silly to charge that kind of money for residential Internet access. I don’t know what’s involved with business-level Internet access at Comcast, but presumably it comes with free ostrich egg omelets once a week. For comparison’s sake, I already have 100 mbps Internet access from Cablevision, an ISP in the New York area. For $100 per month I get 101 (!) mbps down/15 mbps up. I am, in fact, able to max out my connection when using Usenet (I have Newsdemon ). But a fair warning to people who think the Internet is magically going to fly once they hop aboard the 100 mbps train: it won’t. Sites like YouTube are still dog-slow, Gmail isn’t any faster than it is using your regular broadband connection. In a sense, you’re faster than what these sites can handle. That will change over time, of course, but don’t think getting 100 mbps is going to change your life if all you do is check your Facebook and watch the occasional YouTube clip. It’s sorta weird: sites won’t upgrade their capacity until there’s enough people with super-fast connections to make it worth their while, and it may not be worth it to the average person to upgrade, and perhaps pay $100 per month, until it’s worth their while.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Might as well get this over with now. The FCC has announced its National Broadband Plan , which describes where the agency would like to see the U.S. in a few years’ time vis-à-vis broadband and connectedness . It’s sorta like the UK’s Digital Britain report, published last year. The big thing is this: it’s in America’s best interest to turn itself into a first-world nation again, and the best way to do that is to develop its Internet infrastructure a wee bit more. That’s the gist of it: better, faster Internet access for many more people. The FCC’s goal is to have, by 2020, 100 million homes (out of a projected 130 million) wired with 100 mbps broadband. The agency has said that broadband represents the country’s “greatest infrastructure challenge.” It’s not bridges and subway tunnels anymore—though we could sure use those, too—it’s about making sure you’re able to use the Internet easily and effectively. The idea is to make the Internet the country’s primary means of communication. The executive summary , a quick synopsis of the otherwise gigantic report, says that broadband “is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life. It is changing how we educate children, deliver healthcare, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organise and disseminate knowledge.” All true. Think of your typical day: how many times do you use the Internet? (And think of those days when, for whatever reason, your Internet connection is down—freak out!) You wake up and you read the news; you check your bank account to make sure you’re not being charged weird fees for no reason; you look to see if your kid’s school is closed because of the snow; you check the weather; you read your work and personal e-mail; you check your Facebook and wish your brother-in-law a happy birthday (even if you don’t mean it); you tweet to the world that “today feels like a good day, gonna be productive”; you download the new Jimi Hendrix album from iTunes and stick it on your iPhone; and you order a Michio Kaku book from Amazon. It’s broadband, it’s the Internet! It’s the future! Now, it’s one thing for the FCC to say, “This is what we’d like to see,” but it’s another thing for that to actually happen. The U.S. doesn’t have the best Internet infrastructure out there—yes, we’re not the best at something, don’t cry—and that could be for a number of reasons. One, the U.S. is pretty big. The best wired countries—the Netherlands, South Korea, Norway, places like that—aren’t very large to begin with, and they’re more urban. That is, the majority of the population lives in cities, unlike here in the U.S. where suburbs and exurbs dominate. There’s a reason why, having lived in and around New York my entire life, I go to other places in the country and think, “Man, this is what the rest of America looks like? This is weird .” Not bad, just different. New York might as well be Jupiter compared to Texas. Anyhow, cities are far easier to wire for broadband than Kansas. It’s often not worth the local Internet Service Provider’s time (and money!) to wire you and your neighbor’s house on Smith Street. But that’s why we need to think of broadband as infrastructure and not some silly little thing. Did we depend on private companies to construct the Inter-state Highway System? Why should broadband be any different? Will taxes go up to pay for this? I don’t know. I do know that I’d rather see tax dollars go to an improved broadband infrastructure rather than, say, bridges to nowhere or ridiculous corn subsidies. (I just saw Food, Inc. and I’m all worked up.) Let the record show that I already have 100 mbps broadband (well, 101 mbps!) and it’s really neat. I, for one, would like to see the U.S. embrace broadband rather than see it fight tooth and nail against progress —big government this, big government that. That’s such a tired argument. Flickr
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Thursday, March 4th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
It’s the PS2 ’s 10th birthday today in Japan (where’s it’s already Friday). It was originally released on March 5, 2000. Bill Clinton was still the president, Triple H was the WWE Champion, and reality TV didn’t even exist yet. The iPod was still a year and change away, and Mac OS X wasn’t even in open beta yet. Windows XP was still months away. Twitter and Facebook didn’t exist! I got a PS2 on launch day here in the U.S. My game library consisted of Tekken Tag Tournament and Ridge Racer V . That was it. The truth of the matter is, for the first several months, I actually played PS1 games like Final Fantasy IX , Vagrant Story , and Chrono Cross on the thing. I’m trying to think, what was the first PS2 game I really played? I do believe Twisted Metal: Black holds that distinction. I was 14, what do you want from me? The next big games on my calendar had to be Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy X . I didn’t get upset about the whole Raiden-Snake switch until I read message board threads telling me to be upset. And here’s a stunning revelation: I never once finished Final Fantasy X ! Maybe I’ll play it using PCSX2 one of these days. Ten years later, that original PS2 still works! Granted, discs sometimes take a little while to boot, but she works! I still have a silver PS2 Slim sitting under the TV. I’m pretty sure God of War II is still sitting in there, which is also unbeaten I hope you recognized the pattern: I tend to buy (or get as gifts in my younger days) games but not finish them. It’s a problem. Best PS2 gaming moment? I’m going to cop-out and say Silent Hill 2 was. Start to finish, great game. This is the part where I ask you guys to weigh in on the PS2. Memories, best moments, least liked moments, etc. Flickr
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
For those of you who have sworn off energy drinks because of their syrupy, cough-medicine-y, sugary taste, these new “Fein Energy Crystals” might be more up your alley. They’re pitched as “the world’s first flavor-free caffeine crystal product” and can be added to any drink without altering the taste. For those of you who have sworn off energy drinks due to semi-serious heart palpitations, irritability, night terrors, and paranoia, you should probably still stay away from this product. And unlike most energy drinks, Fein appears to be little more than 75 milligrams of caffeine per packet—none of the good stuff like Guarana, Taurine, or the myriad of other magic herbs found in the likes of Red Bull, Monster, and Rock Star. One final caveat: it looks like the ordering process involves a free 30-day supply for $6.74 which is then re-billed monthly at $20. So you’d better be down for a caffeine subscription. Full Press Release: Fein Energy Crystals Create a Stir in the Energy Drink Category TAMPA, Fla.–( BUSINESS WIRE )–The world’s first flavor-free caffeine crystal product, Fein, adds a new twist to the $7.9-billion energy drink category: no sugars, no artificial ingredients of any kind, no carbs and no calories. It tastes the same as your favorite beverage. Fein is being introduced through a modified rollout in select markets with a television infomercial and national radio endorsements, announced Stephen Diaco, a management partner for Fein Innovations, LLC. Revolutionary Fein energy crystals, with the trademark slogan, “Conquer the night, take on the day™,” can be added to any favorite beverage, even water, to make it an energy drink without altering the flavor. Fein’s formula is all-natural caffeine citrate and a suite of secret, 100-percent natural “taste erasers.” It is the only energy drink product to use caffeine citrate as its primary source of caffeine, making it an all-natural, soluble power plant for busy people on the go. Fein delivers 75 mg of caffeine per stick with zero sugar, calories, carbs and artificial ingredients with no taste or aftertaste. “Fein is the answer for everyone seeking an energy boost with all the flavor and pleasure of their favorite beverage, but without added carbs, calories, sugars and sweeteners,” Mr. Diaco said. Mr. Diaco said that with imagination, hard work and scientific ingenuity, Fein Innovations, LLC researched 35 generations of product innovation to deliver the energy equivalent of existing 8.4 oz. energy drinks, at a best-available price of less than half a dollar per 0.6 gram serving, about 44 cents. Fein is a non-taxable food product, not a dietary supplement. Spark Brand, Tampa, Fla., created the two-minute infomercial featuring millionaire-maker Kevin Harrington, infomercial pioneer and panelist on ABC-TV’s “The Shark Tank,” and top-ranked, nationally syndicated radio host, Bubba the Love Sponge®. Fein is available at www.GetFein.com , or at 1-800-506-FEIN (3346). Select retail outlets and some military bases carry Fein cubes containing 30 servings, and others are being added. Fein is on Facebook and Twitter (@Fein). Fein is not recommended for anyone under age 18, pregnant women or anyone with hypertension. Users should consume no more than 4 Fein sticks in any 24-hour period. Because Fein incites energy, users should not take within five hours of sleep. Find complete product and scientific information at www.NYNewswire.com/1003/fein
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Monday, March 1st, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
The Facebook app all of us Zune HD lovers have been waiting for has arrived! It looks pretty solid, but due to a hilarious sequence of errors, I can’t update my Zune software to allow the app to be installed. Seriously, Microsoft, I want to recommend Zune stuff to everyone, but you make it so difficult for me. You can see what it looks like in these screenshots, at any rate. More in the gallery below.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
So the Internet is abuzz about the fact that Microsoft has a document entitled “ Microsoft Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook “. The document was leaked to Cryptome, and as soon as MSFT found out they sent a DMCA takedown notice to Network Solutions. The proverbial cat is out of the bag, as the document has been well circulated; but I’m left wondering what’s the big deal? In our litigious society, any service provider is pretty much obligated to keep track of who does what in the event of a lawsuit. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Microsoft retains some generic records about who does what on their various services. It should also come as no surprise that an organization as big as Microsoft has been the recipient of lots of subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders over the years. So it makes sense that Microsoft would develop a document to detail what they can provide, and how it can be obtained. I would expect Google to have a similar document, and we already know that Facebook and other popular destinations have such documents. The real moral of the story here is to remember that what you do online leaves a very real trace, and that companies and websites hang on to those traces — sometimes for a very long time. Don’t assume that because no one is actively looking over your shoulder that what you type into that email or instant messaging conversation is private. If you want real privacy, figure out how to use strong encryption. Via Gizmodo , and lots of other sites.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
According to the FCC, about 93 million Americans don’t use fast, broadband Internet, citing cost and complexity as a factor in their refusal to enter the 20th century. The study, below, found that 80 million adults and 13 million children either still use dial-up or don’t use the Internet at all at home, suggesting that either the survey methodology might be flawed or we’re in serious trouble. DOC-296442A1 Here’s the main focus: The Federal Communications Commission’s October- November 2009 survey finds that nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of American adults use high-speed Internet con- nections to go online from home. The FCC conducted a survey of 5,005 Americans in October and November 2009 in an effort to understand the state of broadband adoption and use, as well as barriers facing those who do not have broadband at home. The main findings are: ➤ 78 percent of adults are Internet users, whether that means broadband, dial-up, access from home or access from someplace other than home. ➤ 74 percent of adults have access at home. ➤ 67 percent of U.S. households contain a broadband user who accesses the service at home. ➤ 65 percent of adults are broadband adopters. The dis- crepancy of two percentage points between household and individual home use is because some survey respon- dents are nonbroadband users but live with someone who, at home, is. ➤ 6 percent of Americans use dial-up Internet connections as their main form of home access. ➤ 6 percent are Internet users but do not use it from home; they access the Internet from places such as work, the library or community centers. In a survey of 5,005 Americans – a fairly small sample, to be sure – found that college educated Americans earning $75K+ are most likely to have broadband while the lowest penetration is in folks over 65+ and Hispanics. While this is hardly a surprise, extrapolating out to get 93 million potential non-broadband users is slightly disconcerting. Sure, the jokes here write themselves (“Oh no! The old can’t use Facebook!”), the fact that broadband is out of reach for folks in lower-income brackets and for minorities creates another educational chasm we’re going to have to deal with sooner than later.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Is your boss clamping down on the hours you spend playing Farmville on Facebook? Are you blocked at work from accessing 4chan and your other favorite websites? You can use something like Try2StopMe , one of probably thousands of website proxy services that allow you to access your favorite destinations through a middleman. Don’t expect this service to remain accessible long: like most proxy services the various content filtering subscriptions used by corporate firewalls find and block these things pretty quickly. Plus, you have no assurance that the middleman isn’t keeping a copy of everything you send — like your Facebook login credentials — for its own nefarious use later. Try2StopMe is powered by Glype , which looks to me like a newer version of the old CGIProxy perl script I used to run ages ago. Best of luck if you find yourself in a position to need something like this. Via RedFerret .